Inquiring minds want to know: Does he have more or less charisma than Tim Pawlenty?

Well he's not a complete dullsville but he's a wonk who makes tough decisions and while Obama edged out Indiana in 2008, Mitch crushed the vote which says a lot about how people here see how he's handled the state.

Actually I think by 2012, enough people will be sick of 10% unemployment and a stagnet economy that we'll be looking for competence and accomplishment rather than charisma and totally awesome teleprompter skills.

Do I like Mitch Daniels? I have no idea. He's one of those people whose name I've heard a lot, but nothing about him has ever stuck in my head. I can't come up with a picture of his face off the top of my head. I have no idea what he's done. Or not done. Or anything.

Don't think he has much of a chance in 2012. The Republicans tend to nominate known quantities, and most often those who have run before. So, my short list of those in serious contention are Romney, Palin, Huckleberry, and Gingrich. On the other hand, if someone wants to get the Republican nomination, they have to run first and get known. So, they have to run a decent campaign this next time, and then they might have a chance in 2016 (but less if another Republican wins in 2012).

Interestingly, the last well known Democrat to have won his first time as his party's nominee was LBJ. He was, by then President, and had been VP and Senate Majority Leader before that. But, then, Kennedy had made his name four years earlier. But since 1964, the Democrats who have won the Presidency have been pretty much unknown to the American public when they ran, and those who were decently well known, lost.

If Whitman wins California (which I very much hope she does) she is going to get knocked around and de-souled by the California legislature, which is the real problem in California. The role of a Republican governor here is to make sure things are not as bad as they could be, until the time the gerrymandered districts change and races again become competitive and thus more likely won by moderates.

No one who wants to run for national office should even step foot in California in the meantime.

Mitch has a problem with social conservatives, due to his "truce" comment on pro-life issues. Not that he wouldn't be an improvement, rather I don't see much enthusiasm for him unless he has a wealth of charm that's gone unnoticed. I expect he's not competitive for the GOP nomination given his lukewarm abortion stance. I prefer the unfiltered straight talking Gov. Christie, if given the choice.

"Actually I think by 2012, enough people will be sick of 10% unemployment and a stagnet economy that we'll be looking for competence...."

The high unemployment rate--actually closer to 20%, according to some, who recognize the tricks used by government to show lower figures--is not a problem that will be remedied by a "competent" President--or a more competent President--as Obama is certainly "competent," if, sadly, a minion of Wall Street, (a primary source of many of the problems leading to our accelerating collapse).

As long as the corporate sector can continue reducing labor costs, taking the savings as profit, they will continue to send jobs south or overseas, where they can pay cents on the American payroll dollar.

What will be left for domestic workers will be what we largely have: lower paying service sector jobs.

We will see robust employment again in this country only when Americans are so beaten down by the corporate thugs that they will accept similar slave-wages as are considered living or semi-living wages abroad, or when Congress passes laws that provide positive and/or negative incentives for corporate employers to bring good (and well-paying) jobs and manufacturing back to America.

As long as the corporate sector can continue reducing labor costs, taking the savings as profit, they will continue to send jobs south or overseas, where they can pay cents on the American payroll dollar.

One problem with your suggestion of some sort of trade barriers is that we don't operate in a vacuum, and if we put up barriers (including providing incentives - which, of course, we have to pay for), then everyone else will too, around the world. And, so, we end up paying more for lesser products, instead of less for better products, just so that some unionized workers can continue making more than their work is worth. Meanwhile, GDP suffers because it implicitly takes into account the subsidies paid, as well as the higher prices charged - or, you could view it that we have fewer goods nationally as a result, and that is why GDP will suffer.

"As long as the corporate sector can continue reducing labor costs, taking the savings as profit, they will continue to send jobs south or overseas, where they can pay cents on the American payroll dollar."

The perfect illustration of your premise is the recent events regarding the Stella Doro cookie factory in New York. The union went on strike and evenutally got a compliant Democratic judge to let them win their court case.

Which is why we need a rebirth of the Wobblies. Moving the factory to Ohio is a lower-tech version of sending jobs overseas. The employers simply run away from paying decent wages to the people whose labor provides their profits.

I'm neutral re: Daniels, but-I told my sweetheart the other day that, come next presidential election, the guy who shows up with the toolbox is the one who will win. Average Americans are sick of charisma and hocus-pocus- they want someone who has a plan.

Oh, and the proper slogan should be:Switch to Mitch. When times get tough, Americans break out the Daniels!Straight up. No chaser.

Mitch has all the good qualities of Reese Witherspoon. He's a Presbyterian with a good brain and a nice smile and a cool demeanor...and he's about five feet tall. The voters won't see anything special in Mitch other than that he is a smart white boy. Why waste the star power of Palin that can win going away against the Obama magic to bet the farm on Mitch winning the 2012 election? My guess is that Mitch is a place holder for Jeb Bush's run for 2016...and that means Mitch will have to take a dive for the Johnny Friendly/Bush Clan. He can't be a contender without the Bush Clan's approval.

peter hoh said... Inquiring minds want to know: Does he have more or less charisma than Tim Pawlenty?+++++++++++++++++++Hoosier Daddy said... Actually I think by 2012, enough people will be sick of 10% unemployment and a stagnet economy that we'll be looking for competence and accomplishment rather than charisma and totally awesome teleprompter skills.

If not then we will deserve exactly what we elect.+++++++++++++++++++++++++Yep. And the Republicans have to come up with something far better than the McCain-Palin ticket. McCain was awful, and Palin was election voting booth poison for Independents.

"And yet, waiters in 2010 have cellphones and HDTVs, while auto workers in the 1960s were lucky if their TVs weren't B&W and they didn't rent their phones from Ma Bell. How'd that happen, I wonder?"

First, most tvs until the later 60s were black and white and many programs were still broadcast in B & W, as well, so color television was an unnecessary extravagance, as 3D tvs are today, or HD TVs were a few years ago;Second, renting their phones from Ma Bell was a good deal...they could have their phones replaced without extra charge anytime,(which was seldom, as the phones were made to last). In fact, I still rent a land line at home from some company that used to be ATT.

But, as to your larger point: people lived within their means back then, and didn't buy what they couldn't afford. I still remember a friend in high school--in 1973--buying some clothing on layaway! Today, people obtain everything on credit. They don't actually own much of what they possess, but are indentured servants to the credit card companies. "Leased" cars are an overt example of this reality.

This is not an illustration of how much better off people are today, but how much worse off we are.

But then, if we get a President Mitch, I'm gonna start insisting people call me "Charlie" instead. This whole thread just makes me twitchy, I can't imagine what an entire presidential campaign & presidential term of office will do to my state of mind.

Makes me wonder how the three or four Baracks in the country feel about the present resident.

Original Mike...Governing, do you mean the skills shown by Bush I--Clinton I--Bush II--almost Clinton II, yet Obama--soon coming Bush III? We first need a conservative elected, and then hide and watch to see how she governs. Most voters are not old enough to have seen an alive and well Conservative President.

"Robert Cook and his ilk have delivered us from the corporate thugs into the loving arms of their fellow socialist thugs. Good times!"

No, we're still in the iron embrace of the corporate thugs.

The more ignorant have been deluded into believing Obama is a "socialist," but saying it over and over doesn't make it so, and brother, it ain't so. Obama is a servant of the wealthy and a facilitator for their objectives, as his predecessors have been.

Most voters are not old enough to have seen an alive and well Conservative President.

I am, alas. But my conceern with Palin is not her conservative intincts but her competence. I have yet to see the intellect necessary to be a competent President. There's a lot of time yet, so maybe it will become apparent. But so far, not so much.

Daniels, on the other hand, from what little bit I know (and I'll be the first to admit that ain't much) actually looks like he's done a good job in Indiana.

Second, renting their phones from Ma Bell was a good deal...they could have their phones replaced without extra charge anytime,(which was seldom, as the phones were made to last).

Um...OK, doesn't the second part of your little ode to Ma Bell refudiate the first part? If the phone's not going to break, renting it isn't a good deal, you end up paying a lot more than if you'd just bought the phone. Those little wiring insurance plans are the same way, phone wires don't just go bad so paying $5 a month for years just on the off chance a mouse chews through your phone line is a terribly bad deal.

In fact, I still rent a land line at home from some company that used to be ATT.

If you want a land line, you have to "rent" the service (though I don't see why you'd want a land line if you have decent cell service at home). But renting the phone instrument is not a good idea under any circumstances.

But, as to your larger point: people lived within their means back then, and didn't buy what they couldn't afford. I still remember a friend in high school--in 1973--buying some clothing on layaway! Today, people obtain everything on credit.

Of course, layaway is just another form of credit, and one that's not advantageous to the consumer. That's because the retailer starts getting your money before you start getting your goods. There's a reason no one uses layaway anymore. It sucks.

They don't actually own much of what they possess, but are indentured servants to the credit card companies. "Leased" cars are an overt example of this reality.

And yet, you were just extolling the wonders of "leased" telephones a few paragraphs ago. Strange.

This is not an illustration of how much better off people are today, but how much worse off we are.

It's mostly an illustration of how you don't understand anything about economics. No wonder you're a commie.

"Yep. I still use the layaway plan. My own personal one. I wait until I have the money until I buy something."

So do I. I saved for nearly three years to buy my Mac Pro and 30" Cinema Display. I deferred my gratification to save myself exorbitant credit card interest and in the interim the products were improved a couple of times and the prices reduced. I paid off the credit card bill immediately once I received it, and paid not a cent of interest. A win all around.

(In fact, I have never let a credit card bill go partially unpaid, but always pay each bill in full the day I receive them. But then, I am frugal and prudent in my use of credit cards and in my expenditures generally.)

Why go for Mitch when we could nominate another Bush? I mean what could go wrong? Jeb's like George H.W Bush, and George Bush Jr. only more so. He's even more Bushier. More moderate and loves illegal aliens even more than W.

Me, for one. I balance my accounts every single morning and keep a very close eye on my HSA. An HSA which your boy's power grab will effectively put an end to.

Do you not live within your means? Do you not plan on x amount per month income versus y per month expenses and make sure you're at a positive balance at the end? That's a very fiscally conservative move. Anyone that balances their checkbook and keeps it balanced is doing the same thing.

Remember, please, that the vast majority of home owners DID NOT default on their mortgages. Of the very large number of people that I know, very, very few of them have ever, this decade or not, declared bankruptcy.

Yes, people buy too much on credit mainly because there is no incentive to save besides, "one should" and the ease of obtaining credit in the past decade or so.

Anybody but Palin. Who wants someone who has charisma, speaking skills,conservative values, and the common touch? Ugh.

Better nominate somone liked by the DC insiders and the New York Times. Can McCain run again? Maybe we can do it right this time and get Joe Liebermann as his VP. Now that's a ticket intelligent Republicans can support!

Or hell, let's just go for Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham. Sigh....

garages asked: "what was the last thing Republicans passed that was paid for?"

Well, technically the last time ANY Congress passed a budget that didn't increase the federal debt was during the Hoover administration. But recent efforts have really made past generations look unimaginative....

Ha. You don't know Republicans. Remember 2008? McCain spent 8 years stabbing Bush in the back and "reaching across the aisle" - so what did the Republicans do? They nominated him for POTUS. Why? Name recognition.

All the dopey Romney voters will vote for him AGAIN and another 20-30 percent wil think -"OMG I can't vote for McCain - I'll vote for Romney - he's so moderate and I remember his name".

Hey, Robert, did you ever find the citations for the U.S. law allowing anyone to arrest the president for war crimes?

Also, it's hilarious to hear you extolling how great things were back in the day when people were not allowed to have credit. Yeah, man, that was great. And those land lines are much better than cell phones because of leasing. Or something. You are the biggest tool in the world.

David - "Palin has proved those who said she should not have resigned the govship to be wrong."

Why is that? Because she resigned and is making lots of money off her name?

And that will make Independents and moderate Republicans and Dems think she is highly qualified to therefore be President??She is another Jesse Jackson - absolutely beloved by the extreme wing of their Party, basking in the rapture of their charisma and constant media attention.....

and utterly unelectable.

And also sharing the sentiment of their worshippers - that "'ol Jesse /'ol Sarah sure tick off all those so-called smart people that wasted their time in lower offices that Jesse/Sarah knew were beneath them". With the reason to vote for them "Just to show The Man/college-educated smarty pants elites" what a person with "street smarts/hockey Mom wisdom" can do.

Same phenomenon. 20 years apart. Sarah is just in her ubquititous "on every TV show, radio, pushing her books" money-making phase Jesse had.

For those who aren't lightweights and who actually care about policy, I discussed Mitch Daniels and immigration at the link. It's not the best because I didn't have much to go one, but it was good enough to get a link from Ann Coulter.

Wacko -- Nobody outside of a couple states really gives a shit about immigration. It's certainly not going to have any bearing on the 2012 election, unless Tom Tancredo runs. In which case it will have a bearing on Tom Tancredo's failed candidacy.

America's Politico was pumping Hoover in 1932 and Carter in 1980, folks. I'm not sure what her sad, sorry agenda is, but I would certainly like to see better commentary, a glimmer of reasoning, and more than one trick from this commenter.

"Lonewacko" is a Moby. That's why he calls himself "wacko". I know its hard for you Southern boys to understand, but when someone calls themselves crazy (aka Wacko) they're telling you don't pay attention.

He isn't the most charasmatic guy, but he loves riding motorcycles and has an impeccable ability to relate to everyone. He is very personable, even staying with strangers in their homes on campaign tours. I interned with at the state house in Indy two years ago and was in a couple meetings with him, truly a neat guy to listen to.

Regarding slogans, My Man Mitch has been affective in Indiana. Ask any resident and almost all will recognize it. During the 2008 campaign he rolled out Mi Amigo Mitch to relate to the hispanic population. Kind of catchy when you hear it enough! Of course the opposition has the obvious "Ditch Mitch" slogan, but nObama is pretty easy too!

I really really hope Mitch runs in 2012. He is the type of leader this country needs.

"In the 1960s, these kinds of goods were made in the USA, by people who could afford to support a family on one income."

"Yes. They could support a family on one income. At a lower standard of living. For a shorter lifespan.

God, you people are dolts."

9/11/10 9:29 AM

Do you suggest that people's lives in the 1960s were worse than today? That family lives where one parent could stay home and attend to the children were worse than today, where many children are latch-key children? That the ability to buy a modest home on one salary was a worse circumstance than buying overlarge, overvalued, overpriced homes today, requiring two salaries, (and often two or more mortgages along the way)? That goods being made in the USA, thus providing employment, was worse than today, where virtually all goods are made abroad by non-American labor, thus ensuring continuing high (and rising) unemployment?

How do you define "lower standard of living?" By the number of big, wasteful shitty things people can accumulate? By the amount of debt one is slave to?

"Shorter lifespan?" Ha. The 60s were hardly ancient history, and most adults were not dropping dead at 40, or even 50. Average life expectancy includes infant mortality rates, and as more children survive childhood, (or rather, as fewer children die), the average life expectancy will rise, even if adults do not live any longer on average than in the past.

It's rich, that those who fulminate against the government living beyond its means will huff and puff about much better off we citizens are today, who must work--those of us who are employed--harder and longer to buy and maintain a home, where our lives are littered with stuff, stuff bought not with money we have now but with money we will have in the future, thus making us, in a true sense, long term wage slaves.

It's pretty hilarious how dumb some of Althouse's commenters are, and it's not at all surprising the dumbest of the dumb showed up after she began her pandering to the tea partiers.

Here's a list of the topics I've covered in thousands of posts since 2002. What I do has an effect on the bad guys and at the same time it's miles ahead of what most r/w bloggers and 'partiers are capable of. Thus the smears.